Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility

Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Manual of Style
WikiProject iconThis page falls within the scope of WikiProject Manual of Style, a drive to identify and address contradictions and redundancies, improve language, and coordinate the pages that form the MoS guidelines.
 
WikiProject Accessibility
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Accessibility, a group of editors promoting better access for disabled or otherwise disadvantaged users. For more information, such as what you can do to help, see the main project page.
 
Wikipedia Help Project (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of the Wikipedia Help Project, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's help documentation for readers and contributors. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. To browse help related resources see the Help Menu or Help Directory. Or ask for help on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you there.
B-Class article B  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This page has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 


Diagonal split color box[edit]

Need your input regarding Draft:Template:Diagonal split color box Is this OK to implement? AngusWOOF (barksniff) 21:48, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Combining two background colors allows to cover more cases with reduced palettes.
Color combinations are a visual aid, text is supposed to be enough to read the information.
The current implementation is only intended for very short text, which fits my needs.
It would be possible to add marker classes to divs to help screen readers. 217.162.112.133 (talk) 22:15, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
@AngusWOOF: The template looks fine to me. The documentation really does need to be updated, though.
First, there are two accessibility areas that the template is capable of violating, and I strongly recommend that the documentation should contain warnings not to do so. These are:
  • MOS:COLOUR – background and foreground colours should meet WCAG AAA standards for every combination viewed together. Not every reader is a native English speaker and even one character that can't be recognised because of inappropriate colour choices may make the text unreadable for some.
  • MOS:TEXTSIZE – no text should be reduced below 85% of the normal page font size'
Second, it's bad documentation to use examples that show the reader how to do something wrong, so I strongly recommend that the documentation should only contain examples that don't breach those two rules.
@217.162.112.133: Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 00:00, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
RexxS, thanks. I'll go ahead and approve them to mainspace for further editing. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 00:17, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
What I forgot to post here is that it seems to be related to User talk:Cmglee/archive2018#Template:Diagonal split header. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:56, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Clarification on policy on column headers in the middle of tables[edit]

Many concert tour lists and articles contain headers in the middle of tables (Zoo TV Tour#Tour dates (FA), Rebel Heart Tour#Shows (GA), Not in This Lifetime... Tour#Tour dates (GA), etc. However, this is contrary to MOS:DTT#Avoiding column headers in the middle of the table, which includes: "Do not place column headers in the middle of a table to visually separate the table. Assistive technologies will get confused as they cannot know which previous headers still apply to parts of the table after the first one ... In most cases, the easier solution is to split the table into several sub-tables with explanatory sub-headings" with good and bad examples. MOS:DTT is not a policy nor a guideline. Should it only be considered optional? —Ojorojo (talk) 16:15, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

MOS:DTT contains examples of best practice, so it's not optional in the sense of "at an editor's whim". If there are good reasons why the table's organisation would benefit from having more than one column header in the table, then editors should not let MOS:DTT stop them from doing that, although they really should still add scope="col" to those headers as a help for screen readers. In the years since that advice was written, screen readers have evolved to cope with more complexities in tables, but we should nevertheless be doing our best to accommodate those who still use older versions. --RexxS (talk) 18:26, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
I see no good reason not to fix these cases. I might even argue that those aren't necessary to be represented in the table at all given that the locations are present already. (I would lean slightly to better practice 1 than 2 since the locations are implied by the locations of each of the tour locations.) --Izno (talk) 18:44, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll add a comment at WT:WikiProject Concerts and link this discussion. —Ojorojo (talk) 13:47, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
RexxS, Izno: While following MOS:ACCESS for discographies is advised during the featured list review process (that's how I learned of it), it hasn't caught on for good article nominations. I've brought it up at WT:GAN#WP:ACCESS concerns; maybe others' comments would help explain it. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:13, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
GA participants don't usually know much about ACCESS or most MoSes or editing guidelines, and then the GAs are held-up as paragons of correct formatting, ACCESS, MoS, and guidelines rather than the project decisions. Where may I comment? Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:50, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
@Walter Görlitz: I started it at WT:GAN#WP:ACCESS concerns. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:35, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

IUCN status[edit]

Can someone take a look and tell me if {{IUCN status}} violates Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Text Do not use techniques that require interaction to provide information, such as tooltips or any other "hover" text? It's not using {{abbr}} or a similar template, so I'm not sure if it's usage is ok or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gonnym (talkcontribs) 18:02, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Reading this article and [1] it would seem that this template's usage of the "title" attribute is indeed violating the MoS. --Gonnym (talk) 11:35, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

MathML[edit]

Please see my question about the accessibility of MathML, at Talk:MathML#Accessibility - I'm sure the requested answer there will be of use to this project. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:00, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Likewise Talk:LaTeX#Accessibility. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:12, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Lotka–Volterra equations seems like a good test page for MathML; do you have a good test page for the LaTeX, Andy Mabbett? HLHJ (talk) 21:17, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

possible accessibility issue in "football" roster templates[edit]

Several years ago, a few editors raised an accessibility concern with accessibility in the template used to list football (or soccer if you prefer) player rosters at {{Football squad player}}. That listing is very compact, but the nationality is hidden and represented in the link and possibly a hover text. They proposed and created {{Football squad player2}}. It's less compact but does list the nation correctly. Both incorrectly link to the nation in violation of WP:OVERLINK. Football squad player2 is not now up for a deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 February 1#Template:Football squad player2. Feel free to weigh-in there. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:56, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

There is now an RfC on the format of the template here. Number 57 10:59, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Since the RfC is discussing the accessibility of the proposed merged template, it may be of interest to members of this project. --RexxS (talk) 15:59, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

SMALLFONT problem[edit]

{{LSR}} is embedded into several other infobox templates. For instance in the infobox on Windows 10 the "Latest release" and "Latest preview" fields make calls to the template and with the small tags built into the original, break MOS:SMALLFONT. I left a comment on the template talk nearly three months ago with no follow-up and no change. See Category:Latest stable software release templates. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:55, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Fixed. You can use an edit request template for a faster response. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:24, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. I wanted to gain consensus before using {{edit protected}}, but the anticipated push-back never materialized. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:31, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
MOS:FONTSIZE has a strong consensus as part of accessibility, so there should not be any concerns. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:58, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
I never try to push an external consensus. See the issues above at the football template for instance. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:14, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

MediaWiki changes that affect accessibility[edit]

There are several changes to MediaWiki that will affect accessibility. Please see Wikipedia:Talk pages project#Other projects.

In particular:

  1. The upcoming Reply tool should make it easier for people to reply (less scrolling through wikitext to find the right place).
  2. The proposed signature requirements should make it easier to tell who posted a comment and prevent some messes.
  3. The multi-line syntax thing should make WP:LISTGAP easier to handle (just wrap the mess in the new wikitext code, and it all becomes the same list item).

Please put that page on your watchlists, and ping me (here or there) with any information or requests you have. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:56, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

WP:THREAD and MOS:LISTGAP suggest different advice[edit]

At WP:THREAD, the suggestion is to use colons (:). At MOS:LISTGAP, the examples for best practice use asterisk (*), though the intention here was to convey accessibility issues with mixing different types. This is a bit inconsistent. 84.250.17.211 (talk) 05:12, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

See also MOS:INDENTGAP, further down the page. The point is not that you can only use asterisks, or only use colons: the point is that you should not mix them at the same level. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:13, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
In reply to 84.250.17.211, I think that we don't have such a problem with normal threaded conversations that simply use colons alone. It's rare for someone to make the mistake of switching from using colons to using asterisks in those cases, whereas in "list-type" threads such as RfCs that use asterisks to delineate each separate !vote, you do find all too often that someone will make the mistake of replying to a comment by using two colons (::) to create an indent, which destroys the list sequence for screen reader users. It's for those sort of errors that we give the examples to help editors understand what should be done. We could simply duplicate the advice in MOS:LISTGAP, giving parallel examples that start with a colon, but I don't think there's any real need to do that. --RexxS (talk) 13:33, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Relevant discussion of table legends and MOS:COLOR[edit]

Feedback requested at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Typographical_symbols_used_for_notes_and_accessibility. Thanks. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 02:03, 21 March 2020 (UTC)